by Christopher A. Ferrara
July 14, 2017
Corrispondenza Romana has republished a remarkable editorial by Fael Farouq, a Muslim professor of linguistics at the Catholic University of Milan (translation mine). Unlike Western politicians and liberal Catholic prelates (which is practically a tautology), Farouq tells the truth about Islam: that its radical exponents are motivated precisely by a doctrine which has everything to do with their religion:
“The one who kills himself and others believes in a precise doctrine [the conquest of the world for Islam on the model of Mohammad himself]. And the massacres continue to mount, from the heart of Europe to the many wounded hearts of Asia and Africa. Therefore, if one wishes to stop this river of blood, this doctrine must be purified of interpretations that lead people of the Muslim faith to embrace terrorism.”
As for the so-called “moderate” Muslim regimes, Farouq observes — the Saudi muftis, for example — while they condemn terrorism with their lips, they nevertheless “refuse… human rights [e.g., to women and non-Muslims] and this is an irremediable contradiction.”
Moreover, even the “moderate” Muslim regimes that profess pluralism, such as Egypt, do so by way of “political instrumentalization,” advocating a “reform” of Islam that is always “at the service of power, used to negate democracy. If it were otherwise, why would the state of Egypt permit, in open violation of the [Egyptian] constitution, the existence of the Salafa al-Nour political party, which advocates not wishing Christians well or even addressing a greeting to them?”
Farouq next turns to the Western liberal regimes, which purport to “do everything to prevent violence without violating the rights of Muslim citizens,” and profess that in guaranteeing “human rights” they can “distinguish between barbarous terrorists and their faith.” But these regimes, he notes:
“[C]ombat only the symptoms of the illness, leaving the illness to aggravate itself. How many of these countries have welcomed terrorists in flight from Muslim majority countries? How many host organizations of political Islam, above all the Muslim Brotherhood, which are fonts of this violent ideology?
“How many abstain from condemning the Wahhabi regimes, but rather shake hands with them in friendship and sell them weapons that — as the same governments have recognized — end up in the hands of terrorists?
“Would it not be possible to isolate the regimes that adopt this malevolent interpretation of Islam, as was done with the South African government of apartheid? Is racism greater than spilling the blood of the “other” and not respecting his life in any way?”
But the highlight of this remarkable piece is a brilliant insight into the self-destructive nature of Western pluralism, which merits quotation at length:
“The pluralism of Western societies today is a pluralism that excludes[!] working against the purpose for which it was conceived. It does not favor the person, but rather stereotypes and ideologies.
“In Great Britain, for example, ‘integration’ means the recognition of Sharia courts that violate women’s rights, and the flow of millions of pounds and euros from Gulf state extremists into the coffers of Islamic organizations with an ideological imprint, without controls or restrictions.
“The West has consecrated itself to pluralism and human rights in order not to repeat the painful experiences of Nazism and Fascism, but one wonders: Were Nazism and Fascism not perhaps the supremacy of the stereotype of the person? Did they not believe in something superior to the human person for whom it was justified to die and kill? And today, is there not the risk that even ‘multiculturalism’ becomes a more important stereotype of the person than his real fundamental rights?”
Surprisingly enough, this editorial first appeared in Avvenire, the always liberal-leaning newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference. Not so surprisingly, then, as Corrispondenza Romana notes, it was countered in the same edition with an editorial by Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti. Parroting the liberal line of the post-Vatican II Church, which is unfailingly in sync with Western pluralism, Bassetti says “precisely the opposite of what Farouq maintains” — that is, the usual whitewash of what Pius XI so rightly called “the darkness of Islam.”
Quoth the politically correct cardinal: “One speaks of Islamic terrorists, but they are not Islamic, even if when they kill or set off explosions they pronounce the name of Allah. They are not Islamic; they are poor creatures mad with fury, driven mad by hate.” That they are driven mad and filled with hate by the radical dictates of their own religion seems never to occur to the indefatigable Catholic whitewashers of Mohammad’s evil invention, including the current occupant of the Chair of Peter.
How bitterly ironic it is, to quote the headline in Corrispondenza Romana, that “It takes a Muslim to say that which for the Pope and the bishops is taboo.” But such is the problem of the “blind guides” (Matt. 23:24) of whom Our Lord Himself warned us — the latter-day Pharisees who call others Pharisees when it is they who strain out a gnat for the sake of political correctness while swallowing the camel of radical evil.